I would like to determine which is the best practice between equivalent solutions. The use case is an instance of a class that listen to an event. Dr. Axel Rauschmayer prefers the lambda for readability. I agree with him. But in term of performance and memory consumption, which is the best?
class Abc { constructor() { let el = document.getElementById("my-btn") if (el) el.addEventListener("click", evt => this.onClick(evt)) } onClick(evt) { console.log("Clicked!", evt.target) } }
Can someone to confirm or infirm if the local variables (here el
) can't be cleared by the garbage collector? Or, are modern browsers capable to detect they are unused in the closure?
Function.prototype.bind
:class Abc { constructor() { let el = document.getElementById("my-btn") if (el) el.addEventListener("click", this.onClick.bind(this)) } onClick(evt) { console.log("Clicked!", evt.target) } }
There is no memory issue, but all benchmarks suggest that bind
is far slower than a closure (an example here).
EDIT: I don't agree with the comments that ignore the performance issue of bind
. I suggest to read this answer with the code of the implementation in Chrome. It cannot be efficient. And I insist: all the benchmarks I saw, show similar results on all browsers.
Is there a way to have a low memory usage and a good performance at the same time?
Being anonymous, lambda functions can be easily passed without being assigned to a variable. Lambda functions are inline functions and thus execute comparatively faster.
You can configure the amount of memory allocated to a Lambda function, between 128 MB and 10,240 MB. The Lambda console defaults new functions to the smallest setting and many developers also choose 128 MB for their functions.
Adding more memory proportionally increases the amount of CPU, increasing the overall computational power available. If a function is CPU-, network- or memory-bound, then changing the memory setting can dramatically improve its performance.
Can someone to confirm or infirm if the local variables (here
el
) can't be cleared by the garbage collector? Or, are modern browsers capable to detect they are unused in the closure?
Yes, modern JavaScript engines are able to detect variables from parent scopes that are visible from a closure but unused. I found a way to prove that.
I used this code in Chromium:
class Abc { constructor() { let arr = new Uint8Array(1024*1024*10) // 10 MB let el = document.getElementById("my-btn") if (el) el.addEventListener("click", ev => this.onClick(ev, arr)) } onClick(ev) { console.log("Clicked!", ev.target) } } new Abc()
Notice the variable arr
of type Uint8Array
. It is a typed array with a size of 10 megabytes. In this first version, the variable arr
is used in the closure.
Then, in the developer tools of Chromium, tab "Profiles", I take a Heap Snapshot:
After ordering by decreasing size, the first row is: "system / JSArrayBufferData" with a size of 10 MB. It is our variable arr
.
Now I just remove the arr
parameter in this line of code:
el.addEventListener("click", ev => this.onClick(ev))
Then, a second snapshot:
The first row has vanished.
This experience confirms that the garbage collector is capable to clean variables from parent scopes that are visible but unused in active closures.
Function.prototype.bind
I quote the Google JavaScript Style Guide, section on arrow functions:
Never call
f.bind(this)
orgoog.bind(f, this)
(and avoid writingconst self = this
). All of these can be expressed more clearly and less error-prone with an arrow function. This is particularly useful for callbacks, which sometimes pass unexpected additional arguments.
Google clearly recommends to use lambdas rather than Function.prototype.bind
.
Related:
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With